Irenaeus of Lyons · a new plain-English translation from the original language
[Title fragment, corrupt: "...that he is indeed invisible to them..."] 1. Against those, then, who say that this world was made outside the Pleroma, or under a good God, what we have said a little above is fitting, and such persons will be shut up together with their own Father by him who is outside the Pleroma, in whom too they must necessarily come to an end. But against those who say that this world was made, among the things contained by the Father, by certain others, everything we have now said will prove absurd and unfitting; and they will be compelled either to confess that all things within the Father are luminous, full, and well-ordered, or to accuse the paternal light of being unable to illuminate everything — or else, just as with the part, so also to confess that their whole Pleroma is void, disordered, and dark. And whatever else they accuse the lower creation of, as though it were temporal instead of eternal, and material, must either be beyond reproach, since it is within the Pleroma and in the bosom of the Father, or else similar reproaches will fall upon the whole Pleroma as well. And their Christ will be found to be the cause of ignorance. For, as they say, after he had formed their Mother according to her substance, he cast her out beyond the Pleroma — that is, he separated her from knowledge. He, therefore, is the one who produced ignorance in her, since it was he who separated her from knowledge. How, then, could this same one impart knowledge to the rest of the Aeons who were before him, and yet be the cause of ignorance to his own mother? For he made her to be outside of knowledge.
Further still, if they say that "within the Pleroma" and "outside the Pleroma" correspond to knowledge and ignorance — as some of them indeed say, since whoever is in knowledge is "within," that is, within what he knows — then they must necessarily agree that the Savior himself (whom they say is "the All") was in ignorance. For they say that when he came forth outside the Pleroma, he formed their Mother. If, then, they say that whatever lies outside is the ignorance belonging to all things, and the Savior went forth and became what she was — meaning, he found himself in ignorance — then by what means could he impart knowledge to her, seeing that he himself stood outside knowledge? For we too, since we are outside their knowledge, they say, are outside the Pleroma. And again: if the Pleroma is knowledge, and he was made outside knowledge, that is, in ignorance, then they must necessarily agree either that this is meant locally, that he was outside the Pleroma — and all the things stated above will come round upon them as contradictions — or, if they say that what is within corresponds to knowledge and what is without to ignorance, then their Savior, and long before him their Christ, will be found to have been made in ignorance, having gone forth outside the Pleroma to form their Mother, who is outside of knowledge.
These arguments, moreover, will apply equally against all who, in whatever way, say that the world was made either by angels or by some other being besides the true God. For whatever accusation they bring against the Demiurge, and against the things that were made material and temporal, will recoil upon the Father himself. For if these things were made within the womb of the Pleroma, and were destined soon afterward to be dissolved, was this not by the permission and according to the will of the Father? The Fashioner, then, is not the cause of this working, as though he thought himself to be fashioning very well; rather, it is he who, among his own, permits and approves that the emissions of defect and the works of error should come to be, and that temporal things should exist among eternal ones, corruptible things among incorruptible ones, and things of error among things of truth. But if these things were made without the permission or approval of the Father of all, then he who made these things — which are properly the Father's own — without his permission, is more powerful, stronger, and more sovereign than the Father. And if their Father permitted it without approving, as some of them say, then he permitted it either because, though able to prevent it, he was compelled by some necessity, or because he was not able to prevent it. But if he was not able, he is weak and powerless; and if he was able, he is a deceiver, a hypocrite, and a slave of necessity — not truly consenting, but permitting as though he consented. And having at the beginning permitted error to arise and grow, he now, in later times, tries to dissolve it, when already many have wickedly perished on account of the defect.
But it is not fitting to say that he who is God over all, being free and his own master, was a slave to necessity, so that anything should exist by his mere permission apart from his own decision; otherwise they will be making necessity greater and more sovereign than God, since that which has more power is prior to all things. And from the very outset he ought to have severed whatever gave rise to such a necessity, rather than entangling himself in subjection to it by permitting something so unfitting for him. For it would have been far better, more proper, and more godlike for him to have severed, right from the outset, the source of such a necessity, than to attempt afterward, as though in repentance, to uproot so vast a growth of necessity. And if the Father of all shall be found a slave to necessity, and shall fall under fate, chafing at the things that come to pass, and able to do nothing apart from necessity and fate — then their Bythus, by this same reasoning of necessity and fate, will be found to be a slave, just like the Jupiter of Homer, who says under compulsion: "For I too gave it to you, as though willing, though my heart was unwilling."